Jari,
I hesitated about cross-posting this comment to v6ops too...
On 2007-07-26 20:23, Jari Arkko wrote:
Let me just add something on this:
For example, the deployment
of new transition tools is out of scope of this working group.
Proposals for work beyond the scope of this working group should be sent
to relevant ADs.
This is a topic that I would like to see discussed in the
the IETF, at least in the form of asking whether we
have requirements for new work. The new maintenance
group that we are creating is not the right place for
that discussion, but I do want to have a forum. Stay
tuned.
I believe that a concerted v6 deployment effort (which is not
IETF's job) is likely to start and will lead to both practical
input on operational issues (for v6ops) and to possible
identification of gaps in the specifications (for 6man and, er,
ngtrans). So a way to bring such input into the IETF is
needed, but we shouldn't forget that the deployment effort
itself will be elsewhere.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
